Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Amazon Redshift vs IBM Netezza Performance Server comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

ROI

Sentiment score
6.2
Amazon Redshift ROI varies; cloud transition boosts sales but data volume impacts cost-effectiveness compared to databases like Netezza.
Sentiment score
7.1
IBM Netezza Performance Server improves data query speed and efficiency, enhancing business performance and cost savings through compression.
 

Customer Service

Sentiment score
6.9
Amazon Redshift's customer service is praised for efficiency and professionalism, though some desire easier phone access and consistent availability.
Sentiment score
6.4
IBM Netezza Performance Server praised for knowledgeable support; mixed feedback on resolution speed post-acquisition, yet communication remains consistent.
Whenever we need support, if there is an issue accessing stored data due to regional data center problems, the Amazon team is very helpful and provides optimal solutions quickly.
It's costly when you enable support.
Technical support is very costly for me, accounting for twenty-five to thirty percent of the product cost.
 

Scalability Issues

Sentiment score
7.4
Redshift is popular for its easy scalability on AWS, although some users face challenges with large cluster configurations.
Sentiment score
6.1
IBM Netezza struggles with scalability, requiring extra hardware for expansion, prompting users to consider cloud alternatives for growth.
The scalability part needs improvement as the sizing requires trial and error.
It is provided as a pre-configured box, and scaling is not an option.
 

Stability Issues

Sentiment score
7.4
Amazon Redshift is stable with minor scaling challenges, appreciated AWS support, and noted visibility concerns versus Snowflake.
Sentiment score
7.8
IBM Netezza Performance Server is stable, offering high uptime and reliable performance, with occasional issues due to maintenance or compatibility.
Amazon Redshift is a stable product, and I would rate it nine or ten out of ten for stability.
 

Room For Improvement

Amazon Redshift users struggle with data management, pricing, performance, integration, UI support, and compatibility with various data types.
IBM Netezza struggles with scalability, user interface, query performance, big data support, and high costs, needing better tools and integration.
Integration with AI could be a good improvement.
They should bring the entire ETL data management process into Amazon Redshift.
The cloud version is only available in AWS, and in the Middle East, it is not well-developed in the Azure environment.
 

Setup Cost

Amazon Redshift offers competitive pricing with scalable costs, ideal for large enterprises, though not as economical for smaller companies.
IBM Netezza offers high performance and low maintenance but is considered costly, especially for mid-sized organizations, with significant licensing fees.
The cost of technical support is high.
It's a pretty good price and reasonable for the product quality.
The pricing of Amazon Redshift is expensive.
 

Valuable Features

Amazon Redshift offers scalable, efficient, and secure data warehousing with fast processing, AWS integration, and flexible configurations for analytics.
IBM Netezza Performance Server delivers fast analytics, ease of use, robust support, and efficient data warehousing with minimal maintenance.
Scalability is the best feature of Amazon Redshift. Amazon Redshift handles scalability automatically, so we do not need to scale up or down; it is all managed by Redshift.
Scalability is also a strong point; I can scale it however I want without any limitations.
Amazon Redshift's performance optimization and scalability are quite helpful, providing functionalities such as scaling up and down.
It operates as a high-speed data warehouse, which is essential for handling big data.
 

Categories and Ranking

Amazon Redshift
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
71
Ranking in other categories
Cloud Data Warehouse (7th)
IBM Netezza Performance Server
Average Rating
7.8
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
45
Ranking in other categories
Data Warehouse (12th), Hadoop (7th)
 

Featured Reviews

Sriram-Natesan - PeerSpot reviewer
The ability to create a lot of views or materialized views is beneficial
Improvement in the immediate response and the process of getting into a call could be helpful. We have had to wait for at least twenty-four hours to get a call and then wait for a couple more hours for a solution. Improved connectivity to different BI tools and already published connectors for major tools in AWS could enhance the service.
Shiv Subramaniam Koduvayur - PeerSpot reviewer
Parallel data processing streamlines operations while cost and cloud integration challenge adoption
The cost of the solution is on the more expensive side, which is a concern for me. Additionally, its promotion and interaction with cloud applications are limited. The cloud version is only available in AWS, and in the Middle East, it is not well-developed in the Azure environment. For the cost to be reduced, it should match competitors. Many features need to be incorporated on the cloud.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Data Warehouse solutions are best for your needs.
867,676 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user232068 - PeerSpot reviewer
Aug 5, 2015
Netezza vs. Teradata
Original published at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/should-i-choose-net Two leading Massively Parallel Processing (MPP) architectures for Data Warehousing (DW) are IBM PureData System for Analytics (formerly Netezza) and Teradata. I thought talking about the similarities and differences…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
13%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Government
7%
Financial Services Firm
22%
Insurance Company
8%
Manufacturing Company
7%
Computer Software Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business27
Midsize Enterprise21
Large Enterprise27
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business9
Midsize Enterprise5
Large Enterprise33
 

Questions from the Community

How does Amazon Redshift compare with Microsoft Azure Synapse Analytics?
Amazon Redshift is very fast, has a very good response time, and is very user-friendly. The initial setup is very straightforward. This solution can merge and integrate well with many different dat...
What do you like most about Amazon Redshift?
The tool's most valuable feature is its parallel processing capability. It can handle massive amounts of data, even when pushing hundreds of terabytes, and its scaling capabilities are good.
What needs improvement with IBM Netezza Performance Server?
The cost of the solution is on the more expensive side, which is a concern for me. Additionally, its promotion and interaction with cloud applications are limited. The cloud version is only availab...
What advice do you have for others considering IBM Netezza Performance Server?
The solution has generally received positive feedback from me and is recommended for continued use by end users. However, the product cost is high compared to others in the market, and this cost ha...
 

Also Known As

No data available
Netezza Performance Server, Netezza, Netezza Analytics
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Liberty Mutual Insurance, 4Cite Marketing, BrandVerity, DNA Plc, Sirocco Systems, Gainsight, Blue 449
Seattle Childrens Hospital, Carphone Warehouse, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Battelle, Start Today Co. Ltd., Kelley Blue Book, Trident Marketing, Elisa Corporation, Catalina Marketing, iBasis, Barnes & Noble, Qualcomm, MediaMath, Acxiom, iBasis, Foxwoods
Find out what your peers are saying about Amazon Redshift vs. IBM Netezza Performance Server and other solutions. Updated: August 2025.
867,676 professionals have used our research since 2012.